ProfWag wrote:I totally agree with you JonDonnis. I'd like to add to clarify though, that the education doesn't have to be a college degree type education, but just some objective learning about a particular subject.

Thanks for the clarification.Personally I left school at 16, i am not an academic, and I have no higher education.Yet I regularly have people like Prof. Richard Wiseman forwarding people to me and my site due to what we say.

I think many believers are scared off by academic types, and also those skeptics who feel the need to use Latin words all the time.Sometimes it comes across as very condescending, and can give skeptics a bad name.

ProfWag wrote:I totally agree with you JonDonnis. I'd like to add to clarify though, that the education doesn't have to be a college degree type education, but just some objective learning about a particular subject.

Thanks for the clarification.Personally I left school at 16, i am not an academic, and I have no higher education.Yet I regularly have people like Prof. Richard Wiseman forwarding people to me and my site due to what we say.

I think many believers are scared off by academic types, and also those skeptics who feel the need to use Latin words all the time.Sometimes it comes across as very condescending, and can give skeptics a bad name.

Prof Wiseman is a great person in the skeptic community and knowledgable in many, many areas. He conducted an experiment on remote viewing through twitter a couple months ago that was a hoot.

ProfWag wrote:I totally agree with you JonDonnis. I'd like to add to clarify though, that the education doesn't have to be a college degree type education, but just some objective learning about a particular subject.

Thanks for the clarification.Personally I left school at 16, i am not an academic, and I have no higher education.Yet I regularly have people like Prof. Richard Wiseman forwarding people to me and my site due to what we say.

I think many believers are scared off by academic types, and also those skeptics who feel the need to use Latin words all the time.Sometimes it comes across as very condescending, and can give skeptics a bad name.

Prof Wiseman is a great person in the skeptic community and knowledgable in many, many areas. He conducted an experiment on remote viewing through twitter a couple months ago that was a hoot.

What does being a skeptic have to do with twitter? Or were you just trying to be sarcastic?

- you may well get used to my odd sense of humour eventually - you and many others will never understand it - but get used to it - well may be

personally would not waste my time and money on it - - i mean who the hell is interested in what everybody is doing ?? - why is there this need for people to be constantly "in touch " these days , and do they REALLY think any of their followers are real friends ?? - you know maybe that would be a MASS delusion that skeptics could usefully discuss AND DEBUNK AGAIN i have to use my oft repeated mantra - "always look for the motive " - and the motive behind twitter ?? the exploitation of people with too much money and time on their hands - funny it ALWAYS comes down to money somewhere along the line

but of course as always i don't know what i am talking about - least ways i still have what little money I've got in MY pocket

ProfWag wrote:I totally agree with you JonDonnis. I'd like to add to clarify though, that the education doesn't have to be a college degree type education, but just some objective learning about a particular subject.

Thanks for the clarification.Personally I left school at 16, i am not an academic, and I have no higher education.Yet I regularly have people like Prof. Richard Wiseman forwarding people to me and my site due to what we say.

I think many believers are scared off by academic types, and also those skeptics who feel the need to use Latin words all the time.Sometimes it comes across as very condescending, and can give skeptics a bad name.

Prof Wiseman is a great person in the skeptic community and knowledgable in many, many areas. He conducted an experiment on remote viewing through twitter a couple months ago that was a hoot.

We are currently in disagreement with Richard regarding his "Top Ghost Photo"Our explanation differs from his, see www.badghosts.co.uk

I think that it depends a lot on who the person is, Lets say a large moving light in the sky is seen, A deeply religeous person will see an angelic glow, an astronamy student an iridium flare, an engineer will see an aircraft, a believer sees a UFO, my point is that different people see different things, Lots of people (nobody in particular) Will take an i dont belive it stance because they think that it may make them appear to be a nutcase if they profess that they have seen a ufo or a ghost or yetti or chupacabra (or whatever).

Im a female and i have met guys that i would quite cheerfully slap because they see ghosts aliens and goodness knows what else in every doorway. other people are so scared of the unknown that they will bury themselves in denial, which is as equally irritating as a woo stance, I dont think that its simply a guy thing.

This is a common occurrence, unfortunately. I remember listening to a debate hosted on a radio broadcast, between Rupert Sheldrake and a skeptic. When Rupert asked the skeptic if he had even bothered to read Sheldrake's research literature, the skeptic said, "No." Many skeptics outright, a priori (evidence-lacking a priori, that is) dismiss claims of a paranormal nature.

To be fair, though, many pseudo-believers will believe claims of paranormal phenomena without employing careful scrutiny and deductive reasoning first--not good either.

quantumparanormal wrote:This is a common occurrence, unfortunately. I remember listening to a debate hosted on a radio broadcast, between Rupert Sheldrake and a skeptic. When Rupert asked the skeptic if he had even bothered to read Sheldrake's research literature, the skeptic said, "No." Many skeptics outright, a priori (evidence-lacking a priori, that is) dismiss claims of a paranormal nature.

To be fair, though, many pseudo-believers will believe claims of paranormal phenomena without employing careful scrutiny and deductive reasoning first--not good either.

True that MIke. I sometimes fail to remember that myself. However, if someone were to prove the existance of ESP or any paranormal phenomenon, they most likely will win a Nobel prize and I will hear about it. If someone captures an alien or alien spacecraft, Time magazine will have it on their cover and I will hear about it. If Bigfoot is found, National Geographic will run an aticle about it and I will hear about it. So, sometimes, one does not have to do a whole lot of work or extra reading to formulate an opinion against the current paranormal issues.

ProfWag wrote:However, if someone were to prove the existance of ESP or any paranormal phenomenon, they most likely will win a Nobel prize and I will hear about it.

It's presumptuous to think that's what would occur (that a Nobel prize would be awarded), but I'll consider it a possibility nonetheless. I don't believe that will happen, though, because it hasn't yet, even in light of the various evidence that exists. Materialism, pseudo-skepticism, biases, and so on, will ensure that it doesn't happen. If these pseudo-skeptics aren't even willing to review the data (as is evidenced time and time again), an a priori dismissal of any data or evidence on their part shows their biases; hence, a willingness to grant such a prize will be likely improbable, especially since the persons who determine and control who should receive such prizes are highly influenced by materialistic, dogmatic belief systems.